A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 4, 2021. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section on his criticism of islam uses phrases like "he claimed to speak to muslims." I am not sure if this constitutes unnecessary doubt; the style guide I read said you should not add unnecessary phrases that might be seen as passing judgement. However I am not sure so I have not edited it, but if more experienced person knows if it is wrong, please fix it.n Kewlkha ( talk) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is singularly inept biography. I imagine that it needs to be totally rewritten.
One matter that I can contribute to is his family even though what I say is, in fact, original research in the sense that I made the deductions. Nevertheless surely someone else has made the same deductions and published them in referencible form. His father's name is said to be Mansur. This, of course, needs a reference. His father is also said to be that Sargun ibn Mansur who was Mu'awiya's chief administrator. The time span between Sargun and John is too long. Hence Sargun was his grandfather and Mansur ibn Sargun his father. Unless we have evidence to the contrary it seems necessary to assume that the family lost all their caliphate offices when Abd al-Malik Arabized the government (AH 70-75) which is probably before John was born.
In any case, this article is in desperate need of better references. I cleaned up the ones that were there. 66.234.194.83 ( talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is also notable that he may have been the first Christian to condemn Muhammad in writing (in De haeresibus), calling him "the forerunner of the Antichrist"(podromos tou antichristou) and a false prophet (pseudoprophetes). (PG, XCIV, 764A, 764B). The Jade Knight 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
... was almost certainly not written by John. See R. Volk, ed., Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (Walter de Gruyter, 2006), brief summary here. Altering article accordingly, -- Javits2000 13:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering a change in the picture used, as it's a little choppy (both are, but I'm more concerned with the top image). Can anyone give me an opinion regarding the following images? Forgive that I'm not so familiar with the image policy, so if there could be a conflict with the rules, let me know. Here are the images:
I could also attempt to photograph the icon of him at my church when I get the chance, if the above images are unavailable for use. Please let me know which would work best. -- C.Logan 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The correct name of St John was Yahya ibn Sarjun. His father was Sarjun b. Mansur. His grandfather Mansur ibn Sarjun. -- Cloj 18:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is cited in the article that saint John has written about the Assumption of Mary, but in fact the doctrine of the Assumption had not yet been defined in the church. In the Eastern Orthodox Church in fact the doctrine that is held is about the Dormition of Mary, not the Assumption, and the position held by Eastern Orthodox is that saint John Damascene has written about Her Dormition. Should this be corrected in the first paragraph of the article? -- K kokkinos ( talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Which Oriental Orthodox church venerates John of Damascus? Deusveritasest ( talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What I meant bythat was that your edit Rafy strung togetherd tidbits from Sahas that seem to indicate John of Damascus was not an Arab, when even Sahas himself entertains the strong possibility that he was. For eg, you write his name does not necessarily indicate an Arab background, while omitting info that it is not Greek and is popular throughout the Islamic world. There is undue focus on determining whether he is racially Arab, when this is irrelevant given that he is culturally and linguistically Arab and that suffices to be counted as Arab by most. Anyway, rather than go specifically into what was wrong with your edits, why don't you tell me what you think should be restored that I have removed or altered? I've also made some additions of my own, as you can see. Tiamut talk 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please also note additional sources say:
Rafy, please feel free to add sources here, in the same format I have, that make different conclusions about his ancestry. Tiamut talk 09:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to give my humble "third party" opinion.
I've read Sahas. What he says is that Mansur is not a Greek name, but is common among the " Syrian Christians of Arab descent", and that there is other late evidence that John's grandfather was an Arab; however, the name is not proof of an Arab background, since it could be given to non-Arabs. That valid doubt is not sufficient for us to assert that John was Syriac, but the reasoning is worth noting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There are three different years I've seen given so far: 645, 655(see page 454), and 676. Anyone have any insight on how to deal with this discrepancy? Tiamut talk 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it repeats information discussed in the subsection directly above it, but incorrectly. The 11th century biography is based on an earlier 9th century text. His being named Mansur is mentioned explicitly and deduced by other sources based on descriptions of his grandfather. And Syrian does not always equal Syriac. At least one source excerpted in the sections above uses Syrian while also identifying John as Arab. There were Syrian Arabs, Syrian Syriacs, Syrian Romans, Syrian Greeks, etc. Unless the source specifically uses Syriac, we should not be assuming that is what they meant. Tiamut talk 07:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Can John of Damascus be described as being of Syriac origin based on the information provided in this source? [5] Tiamut talk 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Stock
Hi Rafy. This edit introduces a couple of problems. First, by replacing Semitic with Syrian and removing mention of Arab, the source is being misrepresented a bit. Louth doesn't discount the possibility John was Arab, and his phrasing indicates that he does not view Syrian and Arab to be mutually exclusive. He also cites Sahas as his source for his position of John's ancestry (along with Cox). We know Sahas uses "Semitic" and that's what Louth uses in the footnote (if I recall properly). Inany case, I'd like to change it back to what it said before, unless you have another suggestion on hrasing you would like to consider.
About John's Arabic name ... the source cited does say in a footnote that Yanah is an older form of Yuhanna, so thats not synth in any way. Both those names mean "John". iyanis is an English transliteration of the arabic transliteration of the Greek form of John. i retained the Qurin of Coptic writers in a footnote. I'm not sure that was a first name for him though (rather than say a title). All that material on his name needs more work and a more thorough review of the sources. Tiamut talk 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment 2: I forgot to put the article on my watchlist, but I've read the above discussion, and it's way beyond my expertise. It sounds like Rafy has a good knowledge of the languages involved, while Tiamut is more familiar with Wikipedia policies. I can't tell if the discussion has been resolved, but I get the feeling there's some underlying issue fueling the debate. Anyway, the best of luck to you both. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It states that he could have descended from the Promenent Christian Arab Tribes of Taghlib and Banu Kalb. Neither of thosr tribes are (mostly) Christians - most of those tribes today are Muslim, and were wuite early to convert to Islam. This the description that they are Christian Arab is misleading, and so I removed it. Furthermore, as far back as the Islamic Conquests, "Arab" has been used as a linguistic term as opposed to an ethnic term. It was used to describe people with no descent from the Bedouin Tribes of the Syrian Desert and the North Arabian Desert. In the possibility that John of Damascus was descended from those tribes, his ethnicity would be more accurately described as " Bedouin". Thus that is what I have replaced "Christian Arab" with. Please reply and discuss before editting, or I will automatically revert. Peace. SaSH172 ( talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, this article needs substantial work, which I too don't have the time to perform, so I'm setting forth my thoughts here. I'm not at all interested in disputing his ethnicity, per all the comments on this page, and the substantial intro. First, I think the article should explicate his other title, Chrysorrhoas (Golden Speaker). Was he an eremetical priest-monk, or one who went out into the world, per Golden Speaker rather than Golden Writer?
Most importantly, the legend about John's hand being cut off either fascinates or puzzles me, especially in connection with the tradition that high level civil servants could retire to (or be confined in) monasteries, as well as Byzantine scheming. Clearly, it shouldn't be prefaced as improbable or legendary--only the reattachment seems to deserve that, and I'm not sure from this as written even what era of hagiographic bios from long after his death gave rise to that implausibility. Of course, Byzantines were known for treachery, and leaking forged letters has been done many times in history. Was John in fact adjudged by his caliph, punished and later vindicated? Was the controversy over treason, forgery or something else? I'm pretty sure treason was a capitol offense, and maiming was used for a wide variety of crimes, probably also garden variety corruption. Thus, losing a hand for suspected collusion with the Byzantines in Constantinople seems inappropriate, but a monk or priest missing a hand (or with an artificial limb) certainly would be memorable. I also noted the sentence that Muslim sources only mention his father's retirement. Was John blackballed and intentionally forgotten, or did he lose his nepotistic patron? If the Caliph really trusted and protected John from the Byzantine iconoclasts, why did he move to a monastery in Jerusalem, which probably had more Byzantine pilgrims (even if smaller and less prosperous)? The article says John was an administrator before his ordination, and I presumed that was in Damascus proper, but maybe it was elsewhere. Did John prepare all or some of his iconodule writings while also functioning as a civil servant in the Muslim government (moonlighting)? Seems more likely that he had more incentive to write after ordination, and time to write if confined in the monastery, but that if his faith told him to speak, he could have chosen Jerusalem as a platform. Just my 2 cents (or drachma, or dinar!)... Jweaver28 ( talk) 14:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the date 1883 to 1890. This is the correct date - the decretum "Urbis et Orbis" of Aug 19, 1890 says: "Ecclesiam ita concedi posse censuit, nimirum ut de S. Ioanne Damasceno Confessore fiat die XXVII Martii sub ritu duplici minori, addita Doctoris qualitate." This can be confirmed in several sources, such as Vacant-Mangenot, "Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique" VIII.1 p. 695. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirachinas ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Why was this article vandalized ? The only way you could be called Mansour in this time was if you were of Arabian background. GoulGoul1 ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Is "John of Damascus" really a Medjay?
10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.206 ( talk) 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)~~
The article says John wrote hymns which are still used not only in Eastern Orthodoxy but also, at Easter, in "western Lutheranism". In actuality, the use of hymns by John of Damascus – in particular, two of them, "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain" and "The Day of Resurrection" – in connection with Easter is widespread across most of Western Christianity where the singing of older texts is maintained. Looking just at those two hymns, far and away his most popular outside Eastern Orthodoxy, and looking just at the hymnals published since 1979 and indexed in the
Hymnary.org database, there are 130 instances of those two hymns, if I counted correctly, and they break down denominationally as
29 Anglican (11 of "The Day of Resurrection" + 18 instances of "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain")
26 Calvinist (12 + 14)
11 Catholic (2 + 9)
14 Lutheran (6 + 8)
9 Methodist (6 + 3)
21 Nondenominational (15 + 6)
20 Protestant (Other) (11 + 9)
Obviously there is nothing particularly Lutheran-leaning there. I'm not sure what the best way to redo this is, and since these stats are actually original research on my part, I'm not supposed to be the one to correct it. But there you go. --
Haruo (
talk) 00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 4, 2021. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section on his criticism of islam uses phrases like "he claimed to speak to muslims." I am not sure if this constitutes unnecessary doubt; the style guide I read said you should not add unnecessary phrases that might be seen as passing judgement. However I am not sure so I have not edited it, but if more experienced person knows if it is wrong, please fix it.n Kewlkha ( talk) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is singularly inept biography. I imagine that it needs to be totally rewritten.
One matter that I can contribute to is his family even though what I say is, in fact, original research in the sense that I made the deductions. Nevertheless surely someone else has made the same deductions and published them in referencible form. His father's name is said to be Mansur. This, of course, needs a reference. His father is also said to be that Sargun ibn Mansur who was Mu'awiya's chief administrator. The time span between Sargun and John is too long. Hence Sargun was his grandfather and Mansur ibn Sargun his father. Unless we have evidence to the contrary it seems necessary to assume that the family lost all their caliphate offices when Abd al-Malik Arabized the government (AH 70-75) which is probably before John was born.
In any case, this article is in desperate need of better references. I cleaned up the ones that were there. 66.234.194.83 ( talk) 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is also notable that he may have been the first Christian to condemn Muhammad in writing (in De haeresibus), calling him "the forerunner of the Antichrist"(podromos tou antichristou) and a false prophet (pseudoprophetes). (PG, XCIV, 764A, 764B). The Jade Knight 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
... was almost certainly not written by John. See R. Volk, ed., Historia animae utilis de Barlaam et Ioasaph (Walter de Gruyter, 2006), brief summary here. Altering article accordingly, -- Javits2000 13:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering a change in the picture used, as it's a little choppy (both are, but I'm more concerned with the top image). Can anyone give me an opinion regarding the following images? Forgive that I'm not so familiar with the image policy, so if there could be a conflict with the rules, let me know. Here are the images:
I could also attempt to photograph the icon of him at my church when I get the chance, if the above images are unavailable for use. Please let me know which would work best. -- C.Logan 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The correct name of St John was Yahya ibn Sarjun. His father was Sarjun b. Mansur. His grandfather Mansur ibn Sarjun. -- Cloj 18:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It is cited in the article that saint John has written about the Assumption of Mary, but in fact the doctrine of the Assumption had not yet been defined in the church. In the Eastern Orthodox Church in fact the doctrine that is held is about the Dormition of Mary, not the Assumption, and the position held by Eastern Orthodox is that saint John Damascene has written about Her Dormition. Should this be corrected in the first paragraph of the article? -- K kokkinos ( talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Which Oriental Orthodox church venerates John of Damascus? Deusveritasest ( talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What I meant bythat was that your edit Rafy strung togetherd tidbits from Sahas that seem to indicate John of Damascus was not an Arab, when even Sahas himself entertains the strong possibility that he was. For eg, you write his name does not necessarily indicate an Arab background, while omitting info that it is not Greek and is popular throughout the Islamic world. There is undue focus on determining whether he is racially Arab, when this is irrelevant given that he is culturally and linguistically Arab and that suffices to be counted as Arab by most. Anyway, rather than go specifically into what was wrong with your edits, why don't you tell me what you think should be restored that I have removed or altered? I've also made some additions of my own, as you can see. Tiamut talk 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please also note additional sources say:
Rafy, please feel free to add sources here, in the same format I have, that make different conclusions about his ancestry. Tiamut talk 09:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to give my humble "third party" opinion.
I've read Sahas. What he says is that Mansur is not a Greek name, but is common among the " Syrian Christians of Arab descent", and that there is other late evidence that John's grandfather was an Arab; however, the name is not proof of an Arab background, since it could be given to non-Arabs. That valid doubt is not sufficient for us to assert that John was Syriac, but the reasoning is worth noting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There are three different years I've seen given so far: 645, 655(see page 454), and 676. Anyone have any insight on how to deal with this discrepancy? Tiamut talk 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it repeats information discussed in the subsection directly above it, but incorrectly. The 11th century biography is based on an earlier 9th century text. His being named Mansur is mentioned explicitly and deduced by other sources based on descriptions of his grandfather. And Syrian does not always equal Syriac. At least one source excerpted in the sections above uses Syrian while also identifying John as Arab. There were Syrian Arabs, Syrian Syriacs, Syrian Romans, Syrian Greeks, etc. Unless the source specifically uses Syriac, we should not be assuming that is what they meant. Tiamut talk 07:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Can John of Damascus be described as being of Syriac origin based on the information provided in this source? [5] Tiamut talk 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Stock
Hi Rafy. This edit introduces a couple of problems. First, by replacing Semitic with Syrian and removing mention of Arab, the source is being misrepresented a bit. Louth doesn't discount the possibility John was Arab, and his phrasing indicates that he does not view Syrian and Arab to be mutually exclusive. He also cites Sahas as his source for his position of John's ancestry (along with Cox). We know Sahas uses "Semitic" and that's what Louth uses in the footnote (if I recall properly). Inany case, I'd like to change it back to what it said before, unless you have another suggestion on hrasing you would like to consider.
About John's Arabic name ... the source cited does say in a footnote that Yanah is an older form of Yuhanna, so thats not synth in any way. Both those names mean "John". iyanis is an English transliteration of the arabic transliteration of the Greek form of John. i retained the Qurin of Coptic writers in a footnote. I'm not sure that was a first name for him though (rather than say a title). All that material on his name needs more work and a more thorough review of the sources. Tiamut talk 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment 2: I forgot to put the article on my watchlist, but I've read the above discussion, and it's way beyond my expertise. It sounds like Rafy has a good knowledge of the languages involved, while Tiamut is more familiar with Wikipedia policies. I can't tell if the discussion has been resolved, but I get the feeling there's some underlying issue fueling the debate. Anyway, the best of luck to you both. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It states that he could have descended from the Promenent Christian Arab Tribes of Taghlib and Banu Kalb. Neither of thosr tribes are (mostly) Christians - most of those tribes today are Muslim, and were wuite early to convert to Islam. This the description that they are Christian Arab is misleading, and so I removed it. Furthermore, as far back as the Islamic Conquests, "Arab" has been used as a linguistic term as opposed to an ethnic term. It was used to describe people with no descent from the Bedouin Tribes of the Syrian Desert and the North Arabian Desert. In the possibility that John of Damascus was descended from those tribes, his ethnicity would be more accurately described as " Bedouin". Thus that is what I have replaced "Christian Arab" with. Please reply and discuss before editting, or I will automatically revert. Peace. SaSH172 ( talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, this article needs substantial work, which I too don't have the time to perform, so I'm setting forth my thoughts here. I'm not at all interested in disputing his ethnicity, per all the comments on this page, and the substantial intro. First, I think the article should explicate his other title, Chrysorrhoas (Golden Speaker). Was he an eremetical priest-monk, or one who went out into the world, per Golden Speaker rather than Golden Writer?
Most importantly, the legend about John's hand being cut off either fascinates or puzzles me, especially in connection with the tradition that high level civil servants could retire to (or be confined in) monasteries, as well as Byzantine scheming. Clearly, it shouldn't be prefaced as improbable or legendary--only the reattachment seems to deserve that, and I'm not sure from this as written even what era of hagiographic bios from long after his death gave rise to that implausibility. Of course, Byzantines were known for treachery, and leaking forged letters has been done many times in history. Was John in fact adjudged by his caliph, punished and later vindicated? Was the controversy over treason, forgery or something else? I'm pretty sure treason was a capitol offense, and maiming was used for a wide variety of crimes, probably also garden variety corruption. Thus, losing a hand for suspected collusion with the Byzantines in Constantinople seems inappropriate, but a monk or priest missing a hand (or with an artificial limb) certainly would be memorable. I also noted the sentence that Muslim sources only mention his father's retirement. Was John blackballed and intentionally forgotten, or did he lose his nepotistic patron? If the Caliph really trusted and protected John from the Byzantine iconoclasts, why did he move to a monastery in Jerusalem, which probably had more Byzantine pilgrims (even if smaller and less prosperous)? The article says John was an administrator before his ordination, and I presumed that was in Damascus proper, but maybe it was elsewhere. Did John prepare all or some of his iconodule writings while also functioning as a civil servant in the Muslim government (moonlighting)? Seems more likely that he had more incentive to write after ordination, and time to write if confined in the monastery, but that if his faith told him to speak, he could have chosen Jerusalem as a platform. Just my 2 cents (or drachma, or dinar!)... Jweaver28 ( talk) 14:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the date 1883 to 1890. This is the correct date - the decretum "Urbis et Orbis" of Aug 19, 1890 says: "Ecclesiam ita concedi posse censuit, nimirum ut de S. Ioanne Damasceno Confessore fiat die XXVII Martii sub ritu duplici minori, addita Doctoris qualitate." This can be confirmed in several sources, such as Vacant-Mangenot, "Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique" VIII.1 p. 695. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirachinas ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Why was this article vandalized ? The only way you could be called Mansour in this time was if you were of Arabian background. GoulGoul1 ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Is "John of Damascus" really a Medjay?
10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 43.242.178.206 ( talk) 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)~~
The article says John wrote hymns which are still used not only in Eastern Orthodoxy but also, at Easter, in "western Lutheranism". In actuality, the use of hymns by John of Damascus – in particular, two of them, "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain" and "The Day of Resurrection" – in connection with Easter is widespread across most of Western Christianity where the singing of older texts is maintained. Looking just at those two hymns, far and away his most popular outside Eastern Orthodoxy, and looking just at the hymnals published since 1979 and indexed in the
Hymnary.org database, there are 130 instances of those two hymns, if I counted correctly, and they break down denominationally as
29 Anglican (11 of "The Day of Resurrection" + 18 instances of "Come, Ye Faithful, Raise the Strain")
26 Calvinist (12 + 14)
11 Catholic (2 + 9)
14 Lutheran (6 + 8)
9 Methodist (6 + 3)
21 Nondenominational (15 + 6)
20 Protestant (Other) (11 + 9)
Obviously there is nothing particularly Lutheran-leaning there. I'm not sure what the best way to redo this is, and since these stats are actually original research on my part, I'm not supposed to be the one to correct it. But there you go. --
Haruo (
talk) 00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)